WASHINGTON, Jan 27 (Reuters) - As the United States prepared for a possible war against Iraq, an influential senator added his voice on Monday to calls to reinstate the military draft, a step the Bush administration says is unnecessary and unwise.

South Carolina Democrat Ernest Hollings said he is sponsoring the Senate version of a bill offered in the House of Representatives by Rep. Charles Rangel, a New York Democrat, who said a universal draft would bring men and women from all walks of life into the military instead of leaving it mostly to low-income people and minorities.

Rangel and Hollings held a joint news conference as weapons inspectors issued a report at the United Nations that said Baghdad had not fully complied with requirements that it disarm, a finding that the Bush administration has said could lead to war with Iraq.

Rangel opposed the congressional resolution authorizing a possible attack on Iraq. Hollings backed it. But citing tensions around the world, they said they worry that the volunteer force would not be enough to fight multiple wars.

"With prospects of continued military action in Afghanistan, a potential war in Iraq, the continued war on terrorism and growing tensions in the Korean peninsula, it becomes clear that we do not have the personnel to fight a multi-theater war," they said in a letter to colleagues.

"Our proposal ensures that all Americans answer the call of duty and that the size of our military forces meets our growing military needs," Rangel, a Korean War combat veteran, and Hollings, a World War II combat veteran, said in their letter.

Hollings said forces already are stretched too thin, as the Pentagon is extending service time of reservists to handle operations in Afghanistan and the troop buildup in the Gulf, which he said is a hardship on them and their employers.

The bill requires military or national service for men and women, ages 18 to 26, without exemptions for college or graduate studies. The president would set the number of people needed for military service, and those not selected for that would serve at least two years in a civilian post.

With the Pentagon against the plan, the bill was seen as having little chance in the Republican-led Congress. But Rangel said it raised issues that the nation should debate.

It already has caused the administration some discomfort as Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld last week apologized to veterans for comments he made dismissing the need to bring back the draft, that was ended in 1973.

With the draft, Rumsfeld said people were "sucked into the intake, trained for a period of months, and then went out, adding no value, no advantage, really, to the United States armed services over any sustained period of time."

Rumsfeld said he had not intended to say that draftees added no value to the military, but that he was "commenting on the loss of that value when they left the service."

Are these two actually trying to destroy their party? Do they really think this is the issue to get them back into the majority?

If we find ourselves in the situation where we need more in miltary service, we could likely get all the qualified and motivated recruits we need just from allowing the recruiters back into the high schools again...a practice which has been discouraged or stopped entirely in many large cities by liberals that now talk about reinstating the draft! Unbelievable...

Well they're a lot smarter than me (LOL)as I can't see the class warfare scoring them points. Hey dummies...er Dims, Breaking Newsflash. No person, rich or poor, is forced into the Military. This is the United States not Iraq. We offer opportunity here. If you work hard you can do anything you want. You can actually do something called "studying" in school and get something called a "scholarship" which will earn you "knowledge" and thus something else you liberal nutcases are not real familiar with.....JOBS.

This guy is old-- maybe he doesn't understand that this is a different kind of war. As an example-- let's compare the number of war dead so far:

Enemy combatants: who cares? Foreign civilians: a few hundred U.S. & allied military: a few hundred? U.S. civilians: around 3,000

Although the figures will change, I don't expect that the ratio will. It ain't WWII, folks. As for the rest of the Democrats calling for a draft-- I agree-- I'll make sure all of the soon-to-be-voting teens I know-- my kids and their friends-- know exactly which party wants to take a few years out of their life for completely bogus, grandstanding and manipulative reasons.

There is nothing wrong with a national draft, at least conceptually. 9-18 months of military based national service for all young people would, over time, be a good thing for the country. It is in the detail that the concept goes to hell.

First, Rangel NEVERS does/says anything that doesn't have a balck race pimp perspective. We see the concept as building a USMC attitude toward the nation. Rangel sees it as giving his race pimps the opportunity to give the blacks an NAACP attitude toward the nation.

How many blacks would be excluded because of failure to meet minimum standards? What about all the illegal aliens? Can you envision the political indoctrination that would be advocated during trainng from smoking to dental hygene, AIDS, homesexuality, Muslims, the environment, and so on. The dems would finally be able to unionize our military.

Good concept, but he dems turn it into filth like they do with everything and Rangel is a black race pimp master.

How about we draft unregistered aliens too. If I were young enough to be drafted, & was told to go to war. I don't believe I would go unless they went also. Bunch of bullcrap for us to go, & they stay & reap the benefits.
Wake Up America!!!

What Idiots! They still think we're fighting WWll. A draft would not be selective enough to fill the technically challenging, multi-tasking military of the 21st century. And enlistment is Voluntary how could it be unfair to blacks? Its a ploy exploit frighten young people and families, anti-war propaganda disguised as a need to protect the country because "we are stretched too thin" nonsense. And it class warfare on top of that because it creates the myth that our battle field soldiers are poor blacks.

We don't need the draft....we've got the FREEDOM LOVING side of the WORLD on our side

Join the AXIS OF FREEDOM Rally on TUESDAY 

its a CAR/HOUSE/YARD sign Rally

DAY of SUPPORT Tues, 1/28/03....FLY your flags (U.S., British, Hungarian, Bulgarian, Romanian, Polish, Czech, Spanish, Quatar, Kuwaiti, Israeli, Australian and Japanese one, too if you have them)....and put up your BUSH/CHENEY signs, (and the BIG W's on your SUV's) for the STATE of the UNION next Tuesday, Jan 28th, if you support the President, our MILITARY and the United States of America. PSST....pass it on.

FREE the IRAQI people!!!

UK

JAPAN

AUSTRALIA

BULGARIA

What OTHER country wants the IRAQI citizens FREEDOM?

ROMANIA

ISRAEL

POLAND

SPAIN

CZECH

KUWAIT

HUNGARY

QATAR

22
posted on 01/27/2003 3:22:53 PM PST
by goodnesswins
("You're either with us, or against us!")

Such a sleazy, blatantly transparent tactic to create a crisis where none exists. The A+ topnotch USMil - the last thing needed is a draft. But the dums are going to use any tactic to blindside Bush. Ain't gonna work.

Besides the blatant political objective of enlisting the young into the Dems anti-war movement, the draft just doesn't make sense in terms of our warfighting ability. Today's military is far different from the one I joined 38 years ago. The use of sophisticated weaponry requires a significant investment in training. The waste of training resources would be enormous if we just brought people in for 18-24 months. Churning large numbers of people through the system makes no sense--unless you have a hidden agenda that has nothing to do with national security readiness.

Wow! Ernest Hollings and Charles Rangel determined a "Volunteer" military denies people an opportunity to serve their Country. What's next Frits & Chuckie, Muslims eat pork with every meal?

Funny, some US citizens may have learned morality in Boy Scouts and believe in duty to God and duty to Country. Honor crosses all racial and economic lines. By the way Frits & Chuckie, how'd you vote on the Hyde Amendment to protect the Boy Scouts?

The reasons you listed are essentially what Rumsfield said when asked about the draft. He said the drain on resources to draft and train can not be absorbed at this time. He also said that a draft would take the current 1.2 million active military to 4 million and cannot be absorbed OR sustained, nor is it necessary.

28
posted on 01/27/2003 3:44:53 PM PST
by justshe
(Eliminate Freepathons! Become a monthly donor. Only YOU can prevent Freepathons!)

We need to close our borders. We cannot do that unless we draft a million men and women and place them with M-16's on the borders.

Next, we need to make sure all Democrat children go to war first. Rangel and Hollings called for it, they should go first, with no concern for family ties. In other words, no combat correspondant jobs for Karenna Gore! Make her wipe the bilges!

When Rangel first proposed a military draft he mentioned the "it's unfair that the children of privilege aren't required to fight" argument. Subsequently (with that classic twinkle in the eye that denotes another Rangel lie or scam), he acknowleged that his real motive was to get young Americans and their parents to oppose US military action.

Any Conservative in favor of the Draft is a useful idiot of the DNC. If we need more soldiers, let's look at an increase military pay and benefits, not to the draft!

Rangle and Hollings care not one whit for the strength of the military, and NEVER have given a tinker's damn about those who wear their country's uniform. They do, however, care a great deal about all the money they believe they'd have available to buy the votes of the lazy and shiftless should the military budget ever get cut as deeply as they wish.

Such cuts, of course, will not occur if the U.S. Armed Forces are involved in a war. Thus, for such parasites as Rangle and Hollings (and make no mistake, many OTHER Leftists are waiting to hitch THEIR wagons to this Donkey's ass, they're just being quiet and letting the safe gadflies take the initial heat), the primary mission now is to avoid or shorten any combat actions.

Not WIN. Not SECURE VICTORY. Just END, preferably as soon as possible.

The standing, among nations, of their land bothers them not at all, nor does the possibility that MORE Americans might be ground up in the terrorist attacks sure to follow an American pullout. POLITICAL POWER, and with it, JOB SECURITY for their own unemployable asses is what is motivating them. Their strategy is as sick as it is, unfortunately, PROVEN. Allow me to explain...

During the blighted 1960's, the Viet Nam war initially had wide public support, with only a few leftist pockets opposing it. Only after the draft began to affect the middle-and-upper classes did public support begin to wane. Young Americans were now, in their peril-mixed-with-cowardice, susceptible to the rantings and beepings of campus Leftists and their moneymen in the KGB. It meant saving their own skin to oppose the war. Their overprotective parents soon followed suit, with the ultimate result being a lost, unfulfilled cause thrown away with 57,000 American bodies, along with our national pride and innocence.

The Rangles and Hollings of the time, however, got their money for "social spending". The large numbers of gullible Leftists gleefully voted for increased welfare and other giveaways, believing that they were doing good by decimating their only defense.

Think I'm off-base? Simply look at how fast the "anti-war" movement died after the draft was repealed. It was NEVER about "peace"; it was all about ass-saving cowardice.

This is the nightmare decade that Hollings and Rangel would repeat for us, even as it was the U.S., itself which was attacked. They would seek to tear us apart again along class lines, KNOWING that even a LIE about the "wealthy" avoiding service would be believed by the masses. They would seek to have young Americans flaunting the law and refusing to serve, and teach them through their Leftist university friends that it's okay to be a coward.

Cowards, after all, do not complain about paying taxes.

As someone has said, Rangel himself has admitted as much. The cynicism and base evil involved in this proposal goes FAR deeper than the obvious slap to the volunteer military (in which I serve with great pride), and the surface class warfare and race-baiting, which by themselves would gag a maggot.

So, the plan is clear...scare the hell out of Americans by threatening them and their children with conscription; then wait until the demand for "peace" becomes deafening; ride that wave into power. It is disgusting, and all the more so that there are actually people who VOTE for these clowns.

The one saving grace here is that this proposal has a big stamp marked "VETOED" waiting for it on the President's desk should it ever, in my nightmares, pass the collection of whores known collectively as "Congress".

Charles Rangel, a New York Democrat, who said a universal draft would bring men and women from all walks of life into the military instead of leaving it mostly to low-income people and minorities.

A pathetic attempt at class warfare here - Rangel is perfectly aware that our current all-volunteer force is NOT disportionately "low-income people and minorities."

This one has all the potential of a lead balloon, but I'd give a lot to hear the college kiddies start to scream in favor of a draft out of reflexive anti-Bush instincts. Not that there's much chance of that.

One of our defects as a nation is a tendency to use what have been called weasel words. When a weasel sucks eggs the meat is sucked out of the egg. If you use a weasel word after another there is nothing left of the other.

Serving in the military (or in our nations defense in any capacity) is an honor and a privilige. It is the selfless 'path less traveled'. The military does not want to waste time and money training those who do not want to serve, nor would I.

In fact, like any good institution, the military should have standards high enough that simply wanting to serve is not enough. You should have something to offer your country, be it education, positive attitude, physical ability, and/or any of a number of other qualities. And you have to be willing and enthusiastic in applying yourself toward your military career. That describes those I have served with, those I still serve with, and the type of people that I would serve with in the future if called to do so again.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.